During debate over the Stop Illegal Entry Act in the House Judiciary Committee last week, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) spoke out in support of an amendment from Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) which demands due process for Kilmar Abrego Garcia and other people deported without adjudication.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:06I think I just want to kind of distill down what my colleague, Ms. Jayapal, is talking
00:12about, and I am definitely going to yield some time to her.
00:15I think our concern is that because somebody says something, that doesn't make it evidence.
00:22Right now, what we have is people saying, well, we have evidence.
00:26As attorneys, we know that that evidence has to be tested in court, and that is what due
00:32process really looks like.
00:34It's not just saying that somebody is MS-13.
00:37It is a matter of a judge determining whether or not that evidence would be admissible and
00:44having the ability to look at the credibility of the witness offering that evidence, such
00:49as when we're talking about Kilmer.
00:53If we look at that, I've got a couple of articles.
00:58There's an article that says government's case against Abrego Garcia is based on PG
01:03County cop who was on the S.A.'s do not call list because he was not a credible witness.
01:11The only person that said that he was MS-13 is a cop that ended up being ... I don't think
01:18he got fired, but he definitely ... Oh, okay, never mind.
01:21He did get fired.
01:23We're going to say that we're going to base our entire case, so to speak.
01:27This is why we have courts.
01:29This is why we are talking about due process, because that's what it looks like.
01:33It looks like more than somebody ... Listen, I can't tell you how many lies are made up
01:39by MAGA followers about me.
01:42I done been all kinds of things, and none of it is true just because they put it out
01:46there on social media.
01:48That is the problem that we're having right now in this country, is that it seems like
01:53nobody cares about the truth anymore.
01:56What we're trying to do is say we have a fact finding, and let me be clear.
02:00I am not saying that the criminal justice system or any other justice system has ever
02:06always been perfect.
02:07I am not trying to say that, but we do have a system, and that system is supposed to be
02:13based upon the Constitution.
02:16Right now, literally due process comes from the Constitution.
02:20This should be the highest protections that one can have in the land.
02:25Right now, it seems like y'all don't care about the Constitution, unless it's the Second
02:30Amendment, and that's misinterpreted as well.
02:33There's other amendments to the Constitution, and we don't get to just change it because
02:39our fearless leader says that he doesn't like certain parts of the Constitution.
02:43We have a process, again, to get amendments, right?
02:48There are people that don't like the fact that there was an amendment so that women
02:51could vote, and guess what?
02:54We ended up with something like the SAVE Act because we don't want women to vote, literally,
02:59but I'm getting off track, so I'm going to go back because I know that Ms. Jayapal wanted
03:03some time, so I will yield my time to the gentlelady from Washington.
03:07Thank you so much, Representative Crockett.
03:11Look, I want to go back to the amendment, which says nothing in this bill can be enacted
03:16until we follow the courts and return these wrongfully deported people to the United States,
03:24and I would thank the sponsor of the bill for at least ensuring that there's a conviction
03:28in this bill.
03:29A lot of the bills around immigration that have been brought up to the floor of the House
03:33do not require a conviction, and so I appreciate that you put a conviction in.
03:38It's not too late to co-sponsor.
03:40I believe that that is an important threshold that should be, and I hope that maybe you
03:45voted against all those bills.
03:46I'm going to go back and check.
03:47I don't think so, but maybe you voted against all those bills that didn't have a conviction
03:52because we voted on a lot of them, and they don't have convictions, so I appreciate that
03:56you put in a conviction here.
03:59Here's the problem.
04:01I think you believe in due process.
04:04You said you have experience arguing in courts.
04:06I assume that you respect court decisions, but I have not heard a single person on your
04:12side speak out and say that the administration must return Kilmar Abrego-Garcia to this country
04:20when the president of the United States said he had the power to do that, and when you
04:25say to me, oh, there's all this information on Mr. Garcia, Abrego-Garcia, and he's this
04:31and he's that, I guess I'm surprised at that because if you really believe in due
04:36process in the court system, and I believe you do, I'm going to give you that benefit
04:41of the doubt, then why not present that information in court?
04:44The Trump administration has refused to present information in court.
04:49They have, and the judges, when they've looked at the things that are there, they're saying,
04:54nope, not good enough, doesn't meet the standard.
04:58So why don't you all say, issue a statement from the Judiciary Committee Republicans,
05:05happy to cosponsor it with you if you'd like, that says that you believe that the Trump
05:10administration should follow the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States and
05:16any judge that rules, including those judges who were appointed by Donald Trump, to return
05:21these wrongfully deported individuals to the United States, because it is undermining everything
05:27that you've done in your career, everything that we stand for on this committee, to not
05:32speak out about it and to act like somehow this is okay.
05:36I think whatever you believe about Mr. Obrego-Garcia, you should be able to say that he should have
05:42due process and that he should, and that the Trump administration should follow the Supreme
05:47Court.
05:48So if you, and I think that this is relevant to this bill, and so I hope that we can do
05:53that together.
05:54I doubt it, but I hope we can do it together.
05:56And Mr. Chairman, I have two UCs.
05:59The first one is this article that says government, what I said before, but more specifically,
06:03Mr. Menendez filled out the gang-filled interview sheet that deemed Obrego-Garcia a member of
06:09MS-13 based on the fact that he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie.
06:13Objection.
06:14And the other one is, it says Trump's case against man deported in error just took another
06:22big hit.
06:23Trump world claims Kilmer Obrego-Garcia was in MS-13, but new information concerning the
06:29local cop who attested to that charge at the time raises fresh questions about it.
06:34Without objection.
06:36Gentleman from California is recognized.
06:39Thank you, Mr. Chair.
06:40I just wanted to briefly address a point brought up by the representative from Texas, Ms. Crockett,
06:46who accused me and my colleagues over here of ignoring the Constitution.
06:51And if that were true, that'd be a very serious matter.
06:54So I did want to just inquire as to what exactly the accusation is.
07:00So I'll happily yield to the gentlewoman from Texas if she'd like to respond.
07:04Do you believe that someone who has snuck into our country, entered the United States
07:09illegally, that the due process requirements for that individual are the same as they are
07:14for a U.S. citizen?
07:18I thought the question was for me, but it seems like the lawyers on this side or just
07:22my entire team knows the answer.
07:26Per the Constitution, yes, if you are on our soil, you are guaranteed due process.
07:35And the fact that there's even a question is why we are struggling right now.
07:41In addition to an additional issue that I have is the executive order that was signed
07:47by the president that seemed to get rid of birthright citizenship, which also is laid
07:54out in the Constitution, which is why even the most conservative judges have ruled against
08:02– there is no one that has ruled that that was okay.
08:06Okay.
08:08You're welcome.
08:10So that's simply untrue.
08:11The Constitution has made it very clear that due process is a context-dependent inquiry.
08:18And someone who is here illegally in this country facing deportation, the requirements
08:23of due process are specific to that context.
08:27And the problem is that during the last administration, we had 10 million people who came into this
08:32country without the least amount of vetting, and it's created an enormous backlog in our
08:37immigration courts.
08:38Now, what we actually did in a measure that we passed in this committee a couple weeks
08:42ago, which I believe every member of the Democrat minority opposed, is we sought to provide
08:47the resources for our immigration courts to operate in a fair and efficacious manner by
08:54increasing the number of immigration judges, of lawyers, of courtrooms, in order to remove
08:59this backlog of millions of cases that now exist.
09:03So I think it's highly problematic to hear arguments about due process from the side
09:09that is actually voting against providing the resources that are needed for due process.
09:14But I think it's even more problematic to make the argument that an illegal immigrant,
09:18perhaps with a criminal record facing deportation, should receive the full measure of due process
09:24that an American citizen does.
09:26That simply is not what the Constitution requires.
09:29I yield back.
09:30Mr. Chairman.
09:31Can I ask you a question, sir, since you still have time?
09:32Yeah.
09:33I'd be happy to yield first.
09:35Okay.
09:36Thank you so much.
09:37So I just want to clarify, and I know that there's lawyers on that side.
09:40It's just like we have different standards in general.
09:43You have a higher standard when it comes to a criminal case versus a civil case, right?
09:49So it's preponderance is going to be the burden on a civil case, and then it's going to be
09:55higher as it relates to a criminal case, right?
09:57It's beyond a reasonable doubt.
09:59That is going to be the burden of proof.
10:01When the Supreme Court was making distinctions, the distinctions weren't necessarily between
10:07is this person a citizen or is this person not?
10:11It wasn't a matter of certain people are not allowed to have due process, but it's kind
10:17of like there's different ways to evaluate things.
10:21The amount of protections that you are going to have in any criminal case, if you think
10:25about those that are charged with murder, whether they are a citizen or not, guess
10:30what?
10:31The burden of proof is still going to be the same.
10:32The burden of proof is still going to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
10:36There was never a distinction that said somehow dependent upon your status, you somehow lose
10:43your access to due process, and frankly, that is honestly the only thing that the Supreme
10:48Court has been consistent on is that there are due process rights that are going to be
10:53afforded to everyone that is found within our jurisdiction in the United States.
10:58I have not seen a case where they have said, no, it's okay for someone not to have due
11:04process.
11:05That is why the plane that was about to leave Texas, they said stop the plane literally
11:10at one in the morning because there had not been due process for those that were currently
11:17being held in the administration's custody, and thank you so much.
11:22I think I understand your position a little better now.
11:24I can't say I agree with everything you said, but I would just say perhaps be careful with
11:27throwing out accusations or ignoring the Constitution, you know, without carefully considering those
11:32statements because the demands of due process is not just something that is the same in
11:37every context.
11:38Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request.
11:43I'd like to submit for the record the Constitution of the United States Fifth Amendment explained
11:49so that the gentleman can see exactly what is in the Constitution where it says no person
11:55shall be deprived of due process.
11:57I would just point out the Supreme Court, as the gentleman from California has said,
12:00has firmly, I'm quoting the Rehnquist from Justice Rehnquist, has firmly and repeatedly
12:04endorsed the proposition that Congress may make rules as to aliens that would be unacceptable
12:09if applied to citizens.
12:11But currently the Constitution says, it's not the same process due American citizens.
12:16Without objection, the Fifth Amendment will be entered in front of the Judiciary Committee's
12:20record.
12:21Thank you so much.
12:22I just wanted to make sure everybody knows what the Fifth Amendment says.
12:25We will take it.
12:26Maybe we could introduce the Fourteenth Amendment too, Mr. Chairman.
12:28Okay, that's fine too.
12:30You can introduce the whole Constitution, God bless you.
12:33Now I got three of you who are in line and I'll defer to the Rehnquist member because
12:36he's one of the three in line, but you can decide.
12:40Let me go first.
12:41It should be quickly.
12:42I have a few questions for Mr. Nye.
12:45I do want to reemphasize what the gentlelady from Texas said, which is of course, the civil
12:50standard of proof is different from the criminal standard of proof.
12:53The criminal standard of proof that governs is beyond a reasonable doubt for both citizens
12:57and non-citizens before someone's criminally convicted.
13:00In the civil context, depending on specifically which one, it could be by preponderance of
13:05the evidence.
13:06It could be clear and convincing evidence.
13:10There are different ways of formulating it, but the critical point for everybody to understand
13:15is that the Supreme Court has said on a 9-0 basis that there must be due process before
13:21people are removed from the country.
13:23Okay, I want to get back to Mr. Knott because the distinguished chairman of our committee
13:31advanced some questions and of course, it's always dangerous to base your image of what
13:37legislation does based on one hypothetical.
13:40He offered a hypothetical relating to opioids and cartels.
13:45There's nothing in the language of your bill that requires proof of somebody being involved
13:51in a cartel or dealing opioids, right?
13:55Oh, no, absolutely not.
13:57That's not an element.
13:58Okay.
13:59And then our distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Correa, he offered a kind
14:06of different hypothetical.
14:07Yes.
14:08And of course, the chairman's is perfectly plausible, but his is perfectly plausible
14:11too.
14:12He says, you've got people, there are tens of millions of them who are coming to America
14:16drawn by employers who are willing to pay them, and there are tens of millions of them
14:20working in the fields, working in retail, working in construction, working doing landscaping,
14:26and so on.
14:27A person, now, and here's where I want you to just help us tease out the meaning of your
14:33legislation, okay?
14:35The person I'm hypothesizing here is not an opioid dealer or a cartel member.
14:42This person has come over in the spirit of the people that our colleague from California
14:48is talking about.
14:49So comes to take a job on the farms, but he's there illegally, now gets deported.
14:56So that's strike number one.
14:59He could be held for six months under current law.
15:02Existing law.
15:03Existing law.
15:04And then it's two years, but you want to change that to five years.
15:08No.
15:09No?
15:10Do you yield?
15:12Please.
15:13So the qualification for a five-year minimum is conviction of a felony here in the United
15:20States while here illegally.
15:23That's number one.
15:26In your hypothesis, Mr. Raskin, when that individual is deported and returned with no
15:31conviction instead of zero to two years, he would be subjected to a penalty of zero
15:36to ten years.
15:37Wait, I say that again.
15:39For the second time?
15:40Yes.
15:41For illegal reentry, the penalty is amended from the existing law right now.
15:45Illegal reentry is capped for most cases at 24 months.
15:49That would be changed to 120 months.
15:52From zero to 120 months.
15:55For the first or the second?
15:57Illegal reentry.
15:58He's talking about 13 months.
15:59Okay.
16:00You're talking about 1325.
16:01Okay.
16:02You're referring to 1326 now?
16:03Correct.
16:04Okay.
16:05All right.
16:06So here's what I want to get at in the limited time I've got.
16:10So on the second round, they could be held up to ten years under 1326.
16:17Illegal reentry.
16:18Okay.
16:19Would you go to page five, if you would, on the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
16:24If you go to the bottom of the page, okay, and this is where maybe I'm getting confused.
16:29Mandatory minimum criminal penalty for reentry of certain removed aliens, right?
16:35So if you were convicted of being removed two times, if you're the person who's been
16:40drawn by the magnet of a salary, an income for your family like the one Mr. Correa was
16:47hypothesizing, right, and you've done it twice, that person may be fined under 18 U.S. Code
16:53and shall be in prison not less than ten years.
16:56And then the other part I don't understand, if you would clarify this, and may be in prison
17:00for any term of years or for life.
17:03So I don't know what that means.
17:06Is that a drafting error?
17:07Again, the crux of this issue with the enhanced penalties requires a conviction before the
17:15enhancements are applied.
17:18So if someone is convicted of a felony, deported, and then illegally reenters, or if there's
17:25enhancements that are spelled out on page five, that's when the enhanced penalties are
17:28triggered.
17:29But can you just explain, what does it mean to say, shall be in prison not less than ten
17:33years?
17:34That does sound like a mandatory minimum, which I thought you were disclaiming before.
17:38But then, and may be in prison for any term of years or for life, then suddenly it can
17:42become a life imprisonment.
17:45Is that right?
17:47The way it's written, there's flexibility there up to life.
17:50That's the intent of the bill.
17:54May I respond briefly?
17:56In regards to these charges, there's always an element of prosecutorial discretion.
18:01A great example in today's world is, marijuana is still illegal federally.
18:05It's everywhere.
18:06Prosecutors are choosing not to charge that.
18:08This bill gives the tools to law enforcement to go after, in an efficient way, the committed
18:13criminals doing harm in the United States.
18:16That's the target.
18:17Again, illegal re-entry or a conviction is what triggers the penalties of this bill.
18:24The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
18:28Thank you, Chairman.
18:29I want to speak to the bill generally.
18:31I think it addresses an important problem.
18:34I think it's a serious bill.
18:36And I think something needs to be done.
18:39But I cannot support the bill with mandatory minimums.
18:42I've been here a dozen years and haven't voted for a mandatory minimum.
18:46I think mandatory minimums run afoul of the intent of the structure of this government,
18:54which is to allow the judges and the juries to have discretion.
18:59Because we cannot foresee, here in this committee room, every circumstance that might arise
19:06in the prosecution of these cases.
19:10Although I think it's otherwise a great bill, I will not be supporting it because it has
19:14mandatory minimums.
19:17And I yield back.
19:18The gentleman yields back.
19:19The gentleman from New York and then the gentleman from Kentucky.
19:21Mr. Chairman, I want to pick up where the Ranking Member left off.
19:26Whatever the intent of the sponsor may be, the bill clearly says that someone who enters
19:35the country illegally twice shall be imprisoned not less than 10 years and may be imprisoned
19:42for any term of years or for life.
19:44In other words, if you come across the border twice, you can get life imprisonment without
19:50committing any crime other than illegal entry.
19:54It seems a little draconian to have the possibility of a life sentence, in addition to which,
20:03you can be imprisoned for 10 years or up to life, and there's no standard for when it
20:11should be 10 years and when it should be life or 20 years or anything in between.
20:16There's no guidance for the judge.
20:20And unlike what I think the sponsor said, there is no requirement for a felony as a
20:28precondition to a life sentence.
20:29All that is required is two illegal entries.
20:33Will the gentleman yield?
20:35I will.
20:36In line 9, it says who was convicted under this section at least two times.
20:41Yes.
20:42Convicted.
20:43Convicted of two illegal entries.
20:45Yes.
20:46I'm not quarreling with that.
20:48So, in other words, if you illegally cross the border twice, you shall be sentenced to
20:55at least 10 years and up to life for no crime other than illegally crossing the border twice.
21:03And there is no guidance for the judge as to whether it should be 10 years or 20 years
21:10or 30 years or life.
21:12Most statutes, in fact all statutes, give some guidance for the length of prison.
21:22This doesn't give any guidance for the length of prison.
21:24It simply says if you've entered the country twice, you can be sentenced to at least 10
21:28years.
21:29All right.
21:30You can be sentenced to life, at least 10 years, but up to life and no guidance within
21:34that.
21:35The gentleman yield?
21:36I will.
21:37Well, again, part of this goal's aim is to deter.
21:39What?
21:40It is to deter.
21:41It is to deter illegal reentry.
21:43Reclaiming my time.
21:44Yes.
21:45I don't doubt it's to deter illegal entry and it certainly does that.
21:48But it still gives no guidance to the judge as to whether to sentence someone to 10 years
21:54or 11 years or 12 years or life imprisonment.
21:58And that doesn't make any sense.
22:00If you wanted to say, if you wanted to say that the first illegal entry shall be sentenced
22:07to five years and the second to 10 or the first to 10 and the second to 20, it'd be
22:13a little harsh, I think, but it would make sense.
22:17But to say 10 to life with no guidance to the judge, with no standards, that makes no
22:24sense.
22:25The gentleman yield?
22:26I'll yield to Ms. Ross.
22:31And I'm going to want some of my own time after you do that.
22:36So I wanted to make the point, and we've talked about this.
22:42You and I both represent North Carolina.
22:44We've talked about what you want to do, your main reason for even being here.
22:49This bill is everything to you.
22:51So I would hope you would want it drafted well.
22:56And I think the point that's being made here is, in addition to the mandatory minimum that
23:03Mr. Massey has raised, there isn't a disjunction between anything that's even longer than that.
23:13It actually says the mandatory minimum of 10 years and a prison sentence for any amount
23:23of time or life.
23:25And so it's not giving the judge the option of choosing between them.
23:31The judge has to do both.
23:33And so I just would ask the gentleman to consider that that might be a drafting error and not
23:41his intent.
23:42And, you know, it's going to take a long time for this bill to go everywhere.
23:45You know, the Rules Committee may never stop, and you may never get to rules.
23:49So let's take a little time.
23:52And if that is true, if it's truly your intent to give some judicial discretion to make sure
23:58that this bill doesn't mandate that judges do that.
24:03Reclaiming my time, this bill says not less than 10 years and may be in prison for any
24:10years to life.
24:12It gives no discretion.
24:13I'm sorry.
24:14It gives total discretion to the judge, no guidance.
24:17And that's the problem with the bill, in addition to its harshness.
24:21I'll yield.
24:22Well, just just briefly, again, a goal is deterrence, number one.
24:27Number two, mandatory minimums can be penetrated upon motion of the government.
24:32That's a well-established fact for substantial cooperation, 18 U.S.C., I think it's 3553
24:37E. Thirdly, thirdly, mandatory minimums, whether it's drugs,
24:42continuing criminal enterprise, firearm statutes, et cetera.
24:44There's no discretion for the judge.
24:46That's what the attorney.
24:47Reclaiming my time for the attorney is a mandatory minimum in the bill and doesn't have time
24:51to reclaim.
24:52And it is a mandatory minimum in the bill.
24:56And the maximum is life.
24:58And I would simply suggest that in looking at this bill, you give some standard to the
25:03judge for what to do.
25:05I yield back.
25:06Gentlemen, yields back.
25:08I've kept Mr. Goldman waiting for four people, so I'm going there next and then I'll come
25:12back to the gentlelady from North Carolina if we don't want that.
25:14I'll go first, Mr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
25:19My colleague on the other side of the aisle who shares a glorious past as a federal prosecutor
25:26in the DOJ with me says that the goal is deterrence of this bill, that deportation alone is no
25:34deterrent to returning here.
25:37I think the chairman said the goal of this is to prevent members of the cartel or parts
25:45of terrorist organizations from coming back to this country.
25:52And it almost feels like we are living in completely disjointed universes from what
26:00is happening down the street, where the president and his administration is desperately trying
26:11to deport people before their criminal case is completed.
26:18And in fact, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle passed a law that allowed for
26:25removal based on an arrest, based on allegations.
26:30So when my colleague from North Carolina and Mr. Issa from California talk about how
26:37this bill only applies to people who have due process, how can you square that with
26:43the fact that you supported the Lake and Riley Act, which does not include due process?
26:47And how can you square that with the fact that you haven't said anything in opposition
26:53to this administration's deportation of people without due process who have not had their
27:01day in court and have not gotten what you believe to be the benefit of deterrence from
27:10a criminal prosecution and a sentence?
27:13So you have a bill here that is ostensibly designed to increase the penalties against
27:19those people who illegally re-enter to deter them from doing that.
27:24And yet you're also passing bills and supporting an administration that does the exact opposite.
27:30It's almost as if we're living in completely different universes.
27:34And in fact, the universe is so different that I want to flag a particular case for
27:41my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
27:45Not too long ago, this Department of Justice dismissed a case against an alleged top leader
27:55of the MS-13 gang, who U.S. investigators believe has information that could implicate
28:02top Salvadoran government officials in possibly corrupt deals with the violent gang.
28:09And he was removed on one of the controversial flights that is the subject of litigation.
28:15So the United States Department of Justice worked hard as part of the task force Vulcan
28:28to extradite this individual to face charges in this country, very serious charges related
28:35to terrorism, racketeering, murder.
28:40And this was a top, top person in MS-13 who either would have served a long period in
28:44jail or perhaps would have cooperated and provided the United States government with
28:51very relevant and important details about MS-13, one of those cartels, one of those
28:55terrorist organizations that the chairman talks about.
29:00But rather than allow the deterrence to play out and the person to go to trial, this MS-13
29:08terrorist to go to trial, be convicted and serve a lengthy sentence, which is the whole
29:13thrust of this bill, this administration decided, no, we're just going to let him go back to
29:20El Salvador.
29:22And so that is the exact opposite.
29:24That's what you're worried about.
29:26That's what you're worried about.
29:27If we just deport people, they'll come back.
29:30And yet that's exactly what this administration is doing with top cartel officials and terrorists.
29:37Now, I have no idea whether this was a side deal between President Trump and President
29:42Bukele that is related to the payments that President Trump is making to President Bukele
29:48in order to imprison prisoners.
29:51There's no question.
29:53There's on the record reporting that President Bukele is very, is in opposition to extraditing
30:03members of MS-13 because they may have information about him.
30:07So I don't know what the derivation of this was and why it happened.
30:11But what I do know is that this is a cartel member who was extradited, charged, would
30:16have gone to jail for a long time and was dismissed by this Department of Justice just
30:21so they could deport him.
30:23So why don't you speak out against that rather than trying to elevate these illegal reentry
30:27sentences?
30:28The gentleman's time has expired.
30:29The gentleman from California is recognized.
30:33Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
30:35For four years, the Democrats deliberately flooded our country with more than 8 million
30:40foreign nationals who violated our immigration laws, illegally crossed the border.
30:46And the Democrats then trafficked them across the country, including the most violent criminals
30:51and criminal gangs and cartels on this planet.
30:56This administration was specifically elected by the American people to protect our citizens,
31:03secure the integrity of our borders, and restore the rule of law.
31:07Now, regarding the Democrats' obsession with returning Abrego Garcia to our country, the
31:14record's very clear, and I'll state it again.
31:16He was determined by two immigration judges to be affiliated with MS-13 after being arrested
31:22in the presence of known MS-13 members wearing gang insignia and a gang tattoo and in possession
31:28of $1,200 in cash and drugs.
31:30A confidential informant confirmed he was a mid-ranking member of MS-13.
31:35He was denied release on bond while his immigration case was pending because of the potential
31:41danger that he posed to the community.
31:44This is precisely the type of individual the Democrats want returned into our neighborhoods.
31:51This is exactly the kind of individual that this bill attempts to protect us from.
31:57The Democrats have made it clear time and again that if they're ever returned to power,
32:03this nightmare will resume and Americans will be held hostage to the most violent criminals
32:07in the world, protected by Democratic sanctuary laws, and shielded by woke Democratic district
32:14attorneys.
32:15That is the choice that faces the American people.
32:18This administration was elected to protect us from this deliberate subversion of our
32:23laws and it's doing everything that it can despite the opposition from the Democrats.
32:30The Democrats argue that even though he was ordered deported, he was ordered not to be
32:37deported to El Salvador, even though he's a citizen of El Salvador.
32:41Now that order was not known to ICE when he was deported.
32:45It should have been, but it wasn't.
32:48Bureaucracies make mistakes.
32:49They shouldn't, but they do.
32:51Point taken.
32:53But now what's the status of this case?
32:55Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador in El Salvador in the custody of the government
33:02of El Salvador.
33:04The United States has no jurisdiction over him whatsoever.
33:08Now the courts ordered the president to quote facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia, but
33:13it's conveniently failed to define exactly what that means.
33:18I think the reason for that is because they can't think of any act the president could
33:22take that a court can compel.
33:25If they could think of one, I think they would have specified it.
33:28So they leave an entirely ambiguous word because they can't define specifically what they mean.
33:34It's very clear that the court cannot compel the president to facilitate or conduct foreign
33:41policy and yet that's the only order they could issue to facilitate Abrego's return.
33:46I think the Democrats need to exercise a little self-reflection here and consider the
33:53position that they've taken and the danger that it poses to the American people.
34:00I yield back.
34:01Yes, I'll yield.
34:02No, I'm not asking for you.
34:03I'm asking for my own time.
34:09Yielding and I appreciate the context and clarification that he gave to the Abrego Garcia
34:12situation and to this bill.
34:15I just want to make sure that the committee understands what Mr. Knott is doing here.
34:20My understanding is the first time someone comes in the country illegally, that's a misdemeanor.
34:26They come a second time, it's a felony and currently they could get two years.
34:32What this bill is going to say is, oh no, if they come in the second time, they could
34:35get up to five years with the judge and then if they're kicked out again and they come
34:39back a third time, then it could go to a 10 years or greater, again, up to the judge.
34:45It's designed to make sure the Abrego Garcia guy doesn't keep coming back and doing bad
34:49things.
34:50Is that clear?
34:51And that's the experience of the gentleman who worked as Assistant U.S. Attorney.
34:56And I'll yield to the gentleman for a response.
34:58Well, essentially, that's correct, Mr. Chairman.
35:01The provision of the bill says if you're here illegally and you receive a felony conviction,
35:06state or federal, you qualify for a new charge, five to life.
35:09If you're deported and come back, regardless of criminal history, zero to 10.
35:15If you come back illegally for a second time with a felony conviction, that's what qualifies
35:20you 10 to life.
35:21Mr. Chairman.
35:22It's very straightforward.
35:23If you are, again, I will state this again, if you are here illegally and you do not commit
35:28a felony, this law does not apply.
35:31This is for the hardened criminal that is inflicting harm on this country, period.
35:37The gentleman yields.
35:38I will recognize you for, I think you're up next.
35:41Okay.
35:42I've got two UCs, Mr. Chair.
35:49Okay.
35:52So the first UC is Mexican Security Chief confirms cartel family members enter U.S. and deal
35:58with Trump administration.
35:59That's from the Associated Press.
36:02And then there is another article.
36:05Is that admitted?
36:06Okay.
36:07Yep.
36:08The other one is what we know about Trump admins reported deal, allowing Mexican cartel
36:14family members to enter U.S.
36:17Objection.
36:19Gentle.
36:20They let in the cartel.
36:21If we can get off the amendment, they have a lot of time on the announcement.
36:32Okay.
36:33But I think we got to get someone.
36:34If we can get off the amendment.
36:35Then you can claim time on the bill.
36:46I got it.
36:47The question occurs on the adoption of the amendment.
36:50Oh, that's right.
36:51The gentleman from Washington question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman
36:54from Washington.
36:55All those in favor say aye.
36:56Aye.
36:57Those opposed.
36:58No.
36:59No.
37:01We have it.
37:02And the amendment is not adopted.
37:05Roll call.
37:06Then we'll come to Mr. Natter.
37:07Clerk will call the roll.
37:08Mr. Jordan.
37:09No.
37:10Mr. Jordan votes no.
37:11Mr. Issa.